Unsorted FBI Documents

Attachment to. Independent Case Review Report
' For CDRU # 465. Case -file # 95-277975

Material Examiner: Malone (R QX

Remarks: ‘

Guilty plea, no transcript available.

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: -Steve Robertson ,

Area(s) .of Expertise: Hair and Fiber . . .

Review commenced at: 10:00 AM . (Time), 03/.13/2001 (Date)

File#: 95-277975 ; , „ .*

Laboratory #(s): 70410057

/ Examiner(s) .& Symbols

- *

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

Reviewed

. Not Reviewed

RQ.

Xb •

□ .

□

XE

□.

♦ Xa

.□

□

□ '

□-

□

Trial testimony transcripts) of:

Materials Reviewed

\ ,

Testimony Date(s):

•Pages:

.Laboratory Reports):

# / %

Laboratory Number:

70410057 • \ * Date: • Oct, 8, 1987

Laboratory Number:

Date:

Laboratory Number:

• • Date:

Examiner Bench Notes of:

RQ

Laboratory Number:.

70410057

Was any othermaterial reviewed? Xp Yes , □ No

If yes, please identify and/or describe .the material: Submitting agency letter (dated 4-9 : 87)

Results of Review

File#: 95-277975 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q47, K1-K5

Review o f Laboratory Reprirt(s) and Bench.Notes:

Note: .Numbered comments are required below or on
additional-pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

Did the exa min er performtfie appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the
methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination^)?

□ Yes □ No X a Unable to Detenriine

Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in
the bench notes? □ Yes X □ No □ Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony: .

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” of “Unable to Determine” Responses

(

Xn Transcript not available,

3)

Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)?

□ Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

4)

Testimony consistent, with the bench notes?

□ Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

5)

Testimony within bounds of examiner’s expertise? •

□ Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

Page _2 ‘of . 4

■

Initials:

~ ' Comments:

(Set forth by above question #, inapplicable.
Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File#: 95-211915

#1: With microscopic hair comparison, even with the best notes, there is no way- to determine die comparison
was performed correctly. . •

#2: The examination results set forth in the laboratory report are supported by the bench notes, but the
documentation is marginally adequate. The notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil. RQ uses

abbreviations to indicate the microscopic characteristics of the hair. These abbreviations are difficult to interpret

The notes appear to indicate that a white-Caucasian head hair, was recovered from the suspects boots (Q2), but

this hair was not reported and was apparently not compared to the victim’s hair.

Review completed at: 10:30 AM (Time), 03/13/2001

(Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 0:30 hours

Thereby certify that I conducted this review-in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review
' are folly documented on this report consisting ,of a total of - 4 pages. ...

/

(Signature)

03/13/2001-

(Date)

Additional Comments
(Set forth by question #, if applicable)

File#: 95-277075

#2 (continued): The notes appear to indicate that a Negroid hair was recovered from the vacuum sweepings of

the victim’s.residence (Q26). The presence of this hair was not reported and it apparently was not compared to

the suspect’s hair. Another hair, recovered from the victim’s blanket (Q33), has Negroid characteristics but is

' deemed unsuitable for comparison. This hair was also not mentioned in the report, and there is no documentation-

as to why this hair is unsuitable for comparison.

The hair match was apparently verified by a second hair examiner.

Page 4 of \ • 4

Initials: